Kenosha

[JKLivin]

Huge difference between threatening someone a putting a bullet through them.

Just following Trad’s logic to its conclusion. Unless, of course, it’s a case of “If I don’t like them or their politics, then the standards are different.”

You are trying too hard

Maybe you’re not trying hard enough. Life isn’t a simple proposition, and your perspective is neither the only one, nor is it automatically the correct one.

[ousdahl]

“Their own decision to carry a gun became a justification to use it”

[Overlander]

The fucking kid travelled to another state, with a fully loaded assault rifle.
He murdered someone.

[ousdahl]

Yeah, I’ve asked over and over - how is a claim of lawful self-defense even available when so much else was unlawful all along.

We’re to the point that the right to possess a gun is afforded more value and priority than the right to be alive

[jhawks99]

The fucking kid travelled to another state, with a fully loaded assault rifle.
He murdered someone.

Murdered someone, owning the libs, potato, pot ahhhh toe.

[ousdahl]

“If you display a firearm or you point it at another person, that’s a threatening act that ordinarily would give, I think, a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm”

But instead of that, we seem to be giving more and more deference to the guys with the guns, rather than the victims in their wake.

“In many states, the burden of proof has shifted from requiring defendants to demonstrate that they acted in self-defense to requiring prosecutors to show that they did not”

[Cascadia]

Judge throws out weapons charge. Not sure what to make of that. He’s now thrown out the two charges (weapons and curfew violation) that should have been undisputed.

Granted, neither have harsh punishments attached to them. Still seems odd.

[jfish26]

Judge throws out weapons charge. Not sure what to make of that. He’s now thrown out the two charges (weapons and curfew violation) that should have been undisputed.

Granted, neither have harsh punishments attached to them. Still seems odd.

Now the judge appears intent on getting the instructions flatly wrong as regards self-defense.

I'm not sure it's even possible for there to be a true result here, with this guy.

[Cascadia]

Judge throws out weapons charge. Not sure what to make of that. He’s now thrown out the two charges (weapons and curfew violation) that should have been undisputed.

Granted, neither have harsh punishments attached to them. Still seems odd.

Now the judge appears intent on getting the instructions flatly wrong as regards self-defense.

I'm not sure it's even possible for there to be a true result here, with this guy.

Yeah, noticed that as well. This guy is a total clown

[MICHHAWK]

in this great country we are innocent until proven guilty.

[jfish26]

in this great country we are innocent until proven guilty.

Do you think in empty platitudes, also?

[Cascadia]

Mich definitely on Team Kyle

[ousdahl]

On what grounds was the weapons charge tossed?

And how was the self defense instruction screwed up?

[Cascadia]

On what grounds was the weapons charge tossed?

And how was the self defense instruction screwed up?

Not sure why the weapons charge was tossed.

Hard to describe the self defense instruction screw up, but it sounds like they got it right in the end. fish could probably speak to that better than I can.

[Deleted User 89]

the law reads rather ambiguous, or at least that’s what i was reading yesterday (USAToday, i think)

such that the judge didn’t think anyone could decipher who could lawfully possess which firearms

[jfish26]

On what grounds was the weapons charge tossed? If I understand it, there is a Wisconsin law (that seems grounded in deer hunting) permitting minors to carry long rifles.

And how was the self defense instruction screwed up? It sounded to me like the judge instructed the jury that if the jury finds Rittenhouse not guilty on the highest-level charge because of self-defense, the self-defense justification applies down the line on the lesser-included charges, as well, such that he's not guilty across the board. As I understand it, though, there is a "reasonableness" requirement for self-defense for the lesser-includeds (which reasonableness requirement does not apply to the top-level charge). In other words, under Wisconsin law, you haven't necessarily resolved self-defense for all charges by using it to find NG on the top-level charge.

[jhawks99]

in this great country we are innocent until proven guilty.

Do you think in empty platitudes, also?

Objection, this implies that mich thinks.

[ousdahl]

the law reads rather ambiguous, or at least that’s what i was reading yesterday (USAToday, i think)

such that the judge didn’t think anyone could decipher who could lawfully possess which firearms

You’d think a judge or the law or someone might make the distinction that the statute is meant to apply to deer hunting, and not to a kid who brings a military style weapon to a riot

That, or maybe Kyle did testify he was out there just looking for a trophy buck

[ousdahl]

How does the instructions apply to the endangerment charge?

Does self defense excuse that too?

What the only thing Kyle is convicted of be, almost hurting a conservative blogger

[RainbowsandUnicorns]